Councillor Smith "“For instance, if it has been a good year, and we have had people retire and not so many new staff arriving, then it will not affect it too badly. ”

Typical "out of the posterior orifice comment from someone who patently doesn't understand how these things work - a retired member is a drain on the fund, receiving their benefits, i.e pension, and if they aren't replaced by a new "contributing member" outting money into the fund" well, provided the remaining funds start attracting sufficient extra "interest or returns on investments" to meet for example any "indexation of pensions in payment" costs, probably all well and good, but if the returns come in at under the "indexation factor" oooops - one pension fund headed deeper into the black .. as in, doh!, he already said it, "As staff contributions do not cover the cost, the rise is roughly the equivalent of an annual 2.5 per cent council tax hike for residents". How and why do you think the "blackhole" materialises in the first place Councillor Smith?

Ivan - true, up to a point, but if the number of "retired memebrs" increases vastly faster than the number of "active members" then it won't be long before the "increased contributions" required of existing staff in order to purchase them the same benefits as the already retired members when they retire and repair that "black hole" become simply "unbelievable". Some "black holes" might be susceptible to filling in, but others simply reflect a basket case scenario, where the only solution really is to "come up with a new affordable to employees and employer scheme". Sad but true !